The questions surrounding the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as U.S. president continue. After abating a bit immediately prior and after the election two weeks ago, more information has surfaced which has returned the issue to the blogosphere.

The Mainstream Media not only blacked out the issue after June 2008, they actually contributed to the Obama's campaign effort to cast anyone with questions about Obama and the many missing pieces of his past as "smear merchants" and "rumor-mongers".

It's Rathergate all over again with more amiss than a 1970s Selectric typewriter. But before I tell you what the experts found, let me ask you a few questions:

1. If you were a natural born American citizen and had it within your means to quiet all the lawsuits and questions with proof, would you do it?

2. If you were a natural born American citizen, would you spend thousands of dollars to fight the legal cases against you, or would you simply answer the legitimate question of whether you meet the constitutional requirements for office?

3. If you were a natural born American citizen, would you forge a document called a "Certification of Live Birth" and tell the public it was a real "birth certificate"?

If someone were to violate the law by manufacturing a forgery in order trick the public, would that be enough evidence for members of Congress to conduct hearings and for a court to issue an order for the critical records, including the original long-form birth certificate (signed by the doctor) to ensure that the U.S. constitutional requirements for office were not violated? After all, Congress is sworn to uphold and defend that Constitution, and the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are "guardians" of the Constitution. That's their job, isn't it?

Let's say you're a Democrat and let's say you're running for president of the United States.

You're a likable guy and are doing well--the New York Times and AP think you're peachy--but there have been whispers of whether or not you are constitutionally qualified.

A prominent Democrat files suit in Federal court asking you to provide proof, to settle the matter once and for all.

What do you do?

A. Provide the court with the three documents in question and go back to shaking hands, making promises and smiling for the cameras.

B. Provide images of one of the documents to a friendly website to post, but not to the court.

C. Ignore the request, then make a motion to dismiss the case, in lieu of providing the proof.

D. In the meantime, quietly, post a notice at your website, FighttheSmears.com that you had dual citizenship with Kenya.

E. Hire the top gun attorney from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to fight the case.

F. File a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08, thereby putting the matter off until--hopefully--after the election.

Time's up. What do you do?

Most readers sensibly chose A.

But, if you're Barack Obama, you chose answers B, C, D, E and F.

A curious response for a campaign interested in "fighting the smears".

Suffice it to say: not everyone bought into the Certificate of Live Birth explanation by the campaign. But more proof was needed because Obama wasn't allowing anyone to see his original "vault" copy of his birth certificate for some unknown reason.

African Press International is preparing for, what they claim will be the airing of the Michelle Obama phone conversation that they claimed they had with her on October 15.

API claims that Ms. Obama raises citizenship issues with the African Press International correspondent on the phone call. The release and airing of the audio tape of that phone call is reported to be imminent.

We could write much about the API situation, but will hold off a while longer.

But perhaps, not too much longer.

We've given our reasons for holding out the belief that African Press International's version of the Michelle Obama phone call was true. The reasons are outlined in several of the links below.

So what's the scoop? Why all of the attention all of a sudden on the Obama birth certificate--especially from World Net Daily, which has had the resources to pursue the story.

WND also has had something going for it in this story that the MSM didn't: the desire to to uncover the truth.

Is something big going to break in this story in the next 24-48 hours?

We do not know for sure. But we do notice things.

We have continued--even after African Press International didn't air their tapes previously--to follow and monitor the story. We still have many nagging doubts over an issue that could be settled quite quickly and easily: the release of the original Obama birth certificate.

But it hasn't been.

Like World Net Daily, we've remained suspicious and quietly pursued whatever leads we had. Many were dead ends. Some remain promising.

We try to verify everything we report. When something is a rumor, we report it. When we have access to information that we can't publish, but feel we're on the right trail, we'll report it to the best of our ability.

If we report something and the source turns out to be a false one, we'll report that also.

We respect our readers' ability to make judgments for themselves. Some will agree, some will disagree.

That's called a discussion and it's healthy.

It's also something not often found in the MSM.

Is something big going to break in the Obama birth certificate story in the next 24-48 hours?